Tag: posts

What you post can wreck your life

Harvard recently rescinded admission offers for some incoming freshmen who participated in a private Facebook group sharing offensive memes. The incident has sparked a lot of discussion: Was Harvard’s decision justified? What about the First Amendment? Do young people know the dangers of social media?

I’m a business school lecturer, career services counselor and former recruiter, and I’ve seen how social media becomes part of a person’s brand – a brand that can help you or hurt you.

College admissions staff, future employers and even potential dates are more and more likely to check your profile and make decisions or judgments about you.

Here’s what you should know so you don’t end up like those Harvard prospects.

1. Social media posts disappear, right?

Let’s be clear about one thing: You’ve been building your online reputation since your first Snapchat. Think the posts disappear? Think private pages are private? Think again.

You might feel like your life and opinions are no one’s business, but you can’t always control who sees what you post. Every photo, video, tweet, like and comment could be screenshotted by your friends (or frenemies). You might make a mistake with your privacy settings or post to the wrong account. And a determined online sleuth can sometimes find ways around privacy settings, viewing photos and posts you might think are well hidden.

2. Do employers and colleges actually look at this stuff?

Your profile will very likely be scrutinised by college admissions officers and employers. According to CareerBuilder’s 2017 social media recruitment survey, social media screening is through the roof:

  • 600% increase since 2006 in employers using social media to screen
  • 70% of employers use social networking sites to research job candidates
  • 34% of employers found online content that caused them to reprimand or fire an employee

This trend is common with admissions as well. Kaplan Test Prep’s 2017 survey of over 350 college admissions officers found that 35 percent checked applicants’ social media profiles. Many who do said social media has influenced their admission decisions.

3. What are recruiters watching out for?

So what are the potential hazards to avoid? These are some of the types of posts that left a bad impression on me when I used to recruit:

  • References to illegal drugs, sexual posts
  • Incriminating or embarrassing photos or videos
  • Profanity, defamatory or racist comments
  • Politically charged attacks
  • Spelling and grammar issues
  • Complaining or bad-mouthing – what’s to say you wouldn’t do the same to a new school, company, boss, or peer?

4. What can I do to build a positive online reputation?

Remember, social media is not all bad; in many cases it helps recruiters get a good feel for your personality and potential fit. The CareerBuilder survey found 44 percent of employers who screened candidates via social networks found positive information that caused them to hire a candidate.

From my experience, the following information can support and confirm a candidate’s resume:

  • Your education and experiences match the recruiter’s requirements
  • Your profile picture and summary is professional
  • Your personality and interests align with the values of the company or university
  • Your involvement in community or social organizations shows character
  • Positive, supportive comments, responses, or testimonials

5. How do I clean things up?

Research. Both the college of your dreams and your future employer could Google you, so you should do the same thing. Also check all of your social media profiles – even the ones you haven’t used for a while – and get rid of anything that could send the wrong message. Remember, things can’t be unseen.

Bottom line: Would you want a future boss, admissions officer, or blind date to read or see it? If not, don’t post it. If you already have, delete it.

By Thao Nelson; published on MSN.com 

An employer can dismiss a worker for inappropriate, insensitive and racist content posted on social media, even if it does not have anything to do with the employer or company, says Werksmans Attorneys.

Company director Bradley Workman Davies explains that this was because companies could face a backlash from customers, prospective customers and other stakeholders because of association, through the employment relationship, with the social media content of employees.

“As such, employers are entitled to be concerned about and to take action for inappropriate content posted by employees, as this has a potential to harm the business of the employer,” Davies says.

“Equally, employees should realise that in the digital age, with regards to the employment relationship, nothing posted publicly is private or irrelevant,” he adds.

In recent weeks, several incidents made headlines when employees were fired or suspended for their social media posts, which employers deemed inappropriate, insensitive or racist.

One of the more prominent incidents was that of media personality Gareth Cliff who was booted off the Idols show for tweeting on freedom of speech during the Penny Sparrow race debacle.

Cliff had tweeted that people did not really understand freedom of speech, which led people to assume that he supported Sparrow’s right to label black beachgoers as monkeys.

Cliff lodged an urgent application in the High Court in Johannesburg and on Friday M-Net was ordered to re-instate him.

eNCA news anchor Andrew Barnes was also given a two-week suspension last month after he mocked Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga’s pronunciation of the word “epitome”.

After receiving backlash on social media, he issued a public apology to the minister.

Action against an employee did not necessarily happen because of a breach of contract through their conduct, but because the employment relationship was based on trust. It could also be based on the broader category where the conduct could be seen to have the intention or effect of breaking the trust relationship between the two parties.

Davies explains that employers always had to afford the employee the right to make representations as to whether they were guilty before taking a decision on what action, if any, would be taken against an employee.

Davies says an employee’s social conduct outside of the workplace could also have an impact on the working relationship.

“This is a recognised principle of South African labour relations, which was acknowledged even under previous iterations of the Labour Relations Act (the 1954 Labour Relations Act, replaced in 1995), and applied by the Industrial Court historically.”

Davies used the example of an employee of Nehawu who was fired after being found guilty of misconduct after he consumed alcohol after hours while at a union congress.

“In this case, the adjudicator found that ’employees are considered to be employees 24 hours out of 24 hours at a congress’ and therefore, after hours consumption was as good as consumption during working hours.”

In another incident, an employer chose to fire colleagues who had had a fight outside of working hours.

“[This] resulted in a strained working relationship and the inability of a continued employment relationship,” Davies says.

He explained that the employment relationship was based on an inherent basis of trust and good faith and any action which caused a break in that relationship could justify the dismissal of the employee.

The same applied when an employee made a direct reference to his employer or colleague on a social media post.
Davies highlighted that the constitutional right to freedom of expression was not absolute. It was limited by Section 36 of the Constitution.

“It is important that when a person exercises the said right, she does not encroach on other person’s rights,” he says.

By Naledi Shange for News24

Follow us on social media: 

               

View our magazine archives: 

                       


My Office News Ⓒ 2017 - Designed by A Collective


SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Top